Chingford and Woodford Green
2010 Results:
Conservative: 22743 (52.76%)
Labour: 9780 (22.69%)
Liberal Democrat: 7242 (16.8%)
BNP: 1288 (2.99%)
UKIP: 1133 (2.63%)
Green: 650 (1.51%)
Independent: 270 (0.63%)
Majority: 12963 (30.07%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Conservative: 20555 (53.2%)
Labour: 9914 (25.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 6832 (17.7%)
Other: 1347 (3.5%)
Majority: 10641 (27.5%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 20555 (53.2%)
Labour: 9914 (25.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 6832 (17.7%)
UKIP: 1078 (2.8%)
Other: 269 (0.7%)
Majority: 10641 (27.5%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 17834 (48.2%)
Labour: 12347 (33.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 5739 (15.5%)
BNP: 1062 (2.9%)
Majority: 5487 (14.8%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 21109 (47.5%)
Labour: 15395 (34.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 6885 (15.5%)
Other: 1059 (2.4%)
Majority: 5714 (12.9%)
Boundary changes: Technically Chingford and Woodford Green loses a small part of Higham Hill ward to Walthamstow, however there are no electors in the area transferred, so for purposes of notional results the seat is unchanged.
Profile: a north-east London seat straddling the boundary between Waltham Forest and Redbridge. It is represented by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith, but perhaps more associated with his predecessor for the Chingford portion of the seat, Norman Tebbit.
This is white, owner-occupied Tory suburbia on the edge of Epping Forest and alongside the Chingford reservoirs in the Lee Valley. The majority of the seat is made up of Chingford; Woodford is split between Leyton and Wanstead, Ilford North and this seat, with the part west of the Central Line coming under Chingford and Woodford Green.
Current MP: Iain Duncan Smith(Conservative) born 1954, Edinburgh, son of WWII flying ace WGG “Smithy” Duncan Smith. Educated at HMS Conway and Sandhurst. A former captain in the Scots Guards serving in Northern Ireland and Rhodesia, as ADC to Major-General Sir John Acland. Between leaving the forces and his election he worked for GEC Marconi. Contested Bradford West 1987. First elected as MP for Chingford 1992. A euro-sceptic rightwinger he rebelled against the party whip over Maastricht in the 1992-97 Parliament, earning the emnity of some party loyalists that would come back to haunt him when he later became leader. Following the Conservative party`s defeat in 1997 he became shadow secretary of state for social security 1997-1999 and shadow defence secretary 1999-2001. Following the 2001 election he entered the leadership race as an outsider in a race that was expected to be between Michael Portillo and Ken Clarke. Following Portillo`s surprise defeat in the penultimate round, the rank and file party membership were left to chose between Duncan Smith and Clarke, with Duncan Smith emerging as the winner. He became leader two days after 9-11 and was strongly supportive of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. He faced considerable dissent as leader of the Conservative party (2001-2003), climaxing in allegations (eventually found to be baseless) that he was inproperly paying his wife Betsy out of his Parliamentary allowance. Before the allegations could be ruled upon a vote of no confidence was triggered by Conservative MPs which Duncan Smith would go on to lose. After ceasing to be leader Duncan Smith remained on the backbenches and headed the Centre for Social Justice, a right-wing think tank. He also chaired the Social Justice Policy Group as part of David Cameron`s policy review, bringing forward policies on family breakdown and social cohesion. Upon the Conservative return to government in 2010 he became Secretary of state for Work and Pensions – along with William Hague he was the first former party leader to accept ministerial office since Alec Douglas-Home (more information at They work for you)
Iain Duncan Smith(Conservative) born 1954, Edinburgh, son of WWII flying ace WGG “Smithy” Duncan Smith. Educated at HMS Conway and Sandhurst. A former captain in the Scots Guards serving in Northern Ireland and Rhodesia, as ADC to Major-General Sir John Acland. Between leaving the forces and his election he worked for GEC Marconi. Contested Bradford West 1987. First elected as MP for Chingford 1992. A euro-sceptic rightwinger he rebelled against the party whip over Maastricht in the 1992-97 Parliament, earning the emnity of some party loyalists that would come back to haunt him when he later became leader. Following the Conservative party`s defeat in 1997 he became shadow secretary of state for social security 1997-1999 and shadow defence secretary 1999-2001. Following the 2001 election he entered the leadership race as an outsider in a race that was expected to be between Michael Portillo and Ken Clarke. Following Portillo`s surprise defeat in the penultimate round, the rank and file party membership were left to chose between Duncan Smith and Clarke, with Duncan Smith emerging as the winner. He became leader two days after 9-11 and was strongly supportive of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. He faced considerable dissent as leader of the Conservative party (2001-2003), climaxing in allegations (eventually found to be baseless) that he was inproperly paying his wife Betsy out of his Parliamentary allowance. Before the allegations could be ruled upon a vote of no confidence was triggered by Conservative MPs which Duncan Smith would go on to lose. Since ceasing to be leader Duncan Smith has remained on the backbenches and headed the Centre for Social Justice, a right-wing think tank. He has also chaired the Social Justice Policy Group as part of David Cameron`s policy review, bring forward policies on family breakdown and social cohesion (more information at They work for you)
Catharine Arakelian (Labour) Educated at Oxford University. Communication skills trainer.
Geoff Seeff (Liberal Democrat) born 1947. Educated at Beal Grammar School and Birmingham University. Management consultant. Contested Chingford and Woodford Green 1997, Redbridge and Havering in 2000 GLA elections, Romford 2005. 
Lucy Craig (Green)Nick Jones (UKIP)Julian Leppert (BNP)None Of The Above (Independent) Original name Adam Osen. Painter and decorator.Barry White (Independent)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 80722
Male: 48.1%
Female: 51.9%
Under 18: 22.2%
Over 60: 21.3%
Born outside UK: 11.7%
White: 86.8%
Black: 5.2%
Asian: 4.8%
Mixed: 2.1%
Other: 1%
Christian: 68.7%
Hindu: 1.5%
Jewish: 2.4%
Muslim: 4.5%
Full time students: 4.1%
Graduates 16-74: 19.8%
No Qualifications 16-74: 26.9%
Owner-Occupied: 75.3%
Social Housing: 15.6% (Council: 10%, Housing Ass.: 5.6%)
Privately Rented: 7%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 6.9%
“LB, it really wouldn’t be fair to imply that only Labour councils allow areas to become run down. Councils of all parties have allowed areas they don’t really care about to be neglected.”
That is true. In addition to the example of Westminster which Barnaby states, I think Croydon also qualifies.
Years ago I was chatting with a former Tory councillor from north Croydon (he served 1978-90). He was scathing about the way the ruling Tory group had for decades been rooted in the south of the borough and systematically starved their northern wards of attention and resources.
It wasn’t just demographic change which tipped north Croydon heavily over to Labour, it was also the neglect and complacency of Croydon Conservatives.
And when Labour won Mortlake in 1998 (outpolling the LDs by 1 in the block vote lol) the slogan which I think won us that election was “Mortlake neglected, say local residents”. And it was. The LDs had been in power (firstly as the Alliance) for 15 years & taken the area for granted – it had been their second safest ward & 2 of their councillors, one of whom was Lord Razzall, were ineffective. It is sadly not uncommon for councils controlled by all 3 parties – yes, I have to include my own in this – to neglect certain areas, either because they don’t care about them or because they take them for granted.
L Bernard
It’s a nonsense conspiracy theory to think that the Labour Council wants the dog track redeveloped to improve the Labour vote.
The proposed housing is all expensive private flats and is considerably more likely to boost the Conservative vote. Because of the cost of the site there is little planning gain to be had – just a handful of shared ownership properties.
The problem is that no-one wants a dog track any more.
PS: I always thought the dog track was in Valley, not Larkswood – it’s just north of the North Circular Road on the way to Chingford Mount.
“Which is the better area – Wanstead or Woodford?”
The confident answer of Woodford is distinctly less true than it used to be. Parts of Wanstead are now becoming favourable residential areas and moving up in the world, while large parts of Woodford are experiencing the same trends as the rest of outer London, as the housing ages, and the demography changes.
Woodford is much bigger than Wanstead, so the picture is variable.
My impression would be on the whole that Woodford is comprised mostly of inter-war housing of the type which as you say elsewhere in London is experiencing degradation whereas Wanstead has rather a larger amount of housing dating from before WW1 and therefore of the typw which may have degarded to a certain extent but is now more likely to be gentrified, Edwardian properties being on the whole much more desirable than the inter-war type. I wonder if a time will come when inter-war properties will start to be seen as ripe for gentrification. Seems difficult to imagine
On the dog track, it is definately in Larkswood but only just as it is on the East side of Chingford Road which forms the boundary between Larkswood and Valley. Directly to the south of the stadium it is Chapel End
“I wonder if a time will come when inter-war properties will start to be seen as ripe for gentrification. Seems difficult to imagine”
It does. Demolition and then redevelopment would seem more likely.
I have read that those 1930s suburban semis were only planed with an expected life of 75 years so its no wonder many now look tatty, not to mention living requirements have changed – en suite bathrooms, more parking etc.
Gentrification seems to occur in areas where the housing has more ‘character’ and are closer to centres of work and leisure.
And those rarely apply to 1930s suburban development.
I’ve mentioned this before but those big 1930s suburban pubs often look run down as well, if they haven’t already closed.
Thanks Pete. I wondered after I’d posted if I should have given more explanation about wanstead-woodford but you have done it for me.
Incidentally I wasn’t querying the location of the dog track – I was just expressing my previous lack of knowledge. As I’m sure most posters on this site know, there’s a wonderful website
http://www.election-maps.co.uk
which gives you the boundaries of every ward in Britain, overlaid on OS maps on which you can zoom. An essential tool for those of us frustrated by the Boundary Commission.
Indeed this was how I found its location. As I mentioned earlier I was previously unaware that the dog track was in this seat, having never checked before and did just assume it was somewhere in Walthamstow ‘proper’
Monkhams in Woodford is surely very desirable.
Woodford Bridge is more mixed but see little demographic change there.
Church End (South Woodford) also pleasant.
There are terraced roads around South Woodford station (Roding) – perhaps that area has changed a bit or perhaps the bit to the east bordering Clayhall – although I have to say I am surprised by the Labour gain in Clayhall because that particular area doesn’t look like it’s changed much.
Interesting what Richard says about inter war semis and the 75 year life span.
They do seem to look increasingly tatty (since the mid 1990s) but not always so.
The problem for the Tories is that they regularly build up huge majorities in seats and wards like this, which in reality have never been places where Labour have ever threatened to do well. Labour can happily lose seats like this one and even see swings to the Tories, as electors in this sort of seat are probably very sympathetic to the right wing cause
Interwar semis are not in decline everywhere.
This kind of housing dominates Bromley, and pretty much without exception they remain in excellent condition.
Suburbs like West Wickham, Hayes, Petts Wood and Orpington consist of road upon road of 1930s semis, many of which are pristine, with a Tory vote of 60% plus.
The age or design life of the properties is immaterial. The key is whether people have the money to maintain and improve the houses. I have often commented that the population of Bromley is filled with wealthy self-employed tradesmen, many living in these kind of houses, and they have naturally spent a lot of time and money doing up their own houses.
The decline starts when an area gradually goes out of favour, with incomers who cannot afford to maintain the houses properly (or have no need to as they are renting). Clearly this is a big factor in Brent North etc. But at least in Bromley I confidently predict that the 1930s semis will exist way past their hundredth birthdays and largely remain in superb condition.
Barnaby has made a good point about Westminster, but coming from the part of London I do (did) I have seen a large swathe of North East London become very run down. Many of those areas have had Labour councils promising all sorts of ‘regeneration’ which have resulted to nothing. Waltham Forest is a perfect example of a council who would rather turn Chingford into Walthamstow rather than attempt to smarten up the rest of the borough to match Chingford – which in this part of London is still considered a move up the social ladder.
My low opinion of Waltham Forest Labour group was confirmed when their councillors passed hideous plans for the dog track and a large site in Walthamstow against everyones wishes. The attacks on Chingford from Labour have been consistent for as long as i’ve been following local politics.
John – These proposed flats will do nothing to boost the Tory vote. Having gone to look at a L&Q development in the past elsewhere in London I can assure you that considering I was one of very few with English as a first language that if these new residents do vote, it certainly will not be for the Tories. As for no one wants the dog track? That should be changed to the local Labour group don’t want the dog track although Stella Creasy has solidly said she wants dog racing back on the site. She is very in touch with local opinion on the matter.
Barnaby and HH are right about councils becoming complacent, something which certain Tory councils also seem to suffer from. I do not like complacent councils and this is why I think its always best to have a good opposition to the leading group.
I would imagine that Woodford is slightly nicer than Wanstead. The Monkhams estate, of mainly large Edwardian houses tips it for me. The 1930′s types of houses do not seem to be holding up very well in this part of London, Ilford North proves that well.
Yes, I think that’s a very good point.
They do seem to vary in style quite a lot though.
The ones in Bromley look pretty large detached houses
rather than the more densely built style you might see in Gants Hill or parts of Sutton or Chessington.
The Tories really should look to pick up a ward or two outside Chingford
to at least push Labour out of control.
They all look utterly hopeless though.
“The problem for the Tories is that they regularly build up huge majorities in seats and wards like this, which in reality have never been places where Labour have ever threatened to do well. Labour can happily lose seats like this one and even see swings to the Tories…”
True enough for Chingford & Woodford Green – not so for Chingford & Edmonton
Exactly. If the boundary changes do go through the result should be a worry for Labour. The Tories may be weak in Edmonton but on the basis of a result such as we’ve seen in Larkswood they would hold a Chingford & Edmonton seat.
Re 1930s semis.
The ones which were the posh houses in poor areas seem to have declined badly.
Whereas the ones which were the poor houses (relatively speaking) in posh areas generally seem still to be fine. Provided that the area as a whole hasn’t fallen down the social scale.
The Tories do need to start busying themselves with other wards in Waltham Forest JJB but I think realistically it’s unlikely that they’ll win any outside of Chingford. Maybe the Lib Dems will rebuild their standing on the council. I don’t know.
Richard is spot on but I think people seem to prefer Victorian/Edwardian or Georgian houses nowadays. I imagine there will come a time when the 30s semi becomes really popular again. I also find much older areas have more character. Walthamstow certainly has a great deal more character than Chingford.
“The ones in Bromley look pretty large detached houses”
Not in the suburbs I mentioned. West Wickham and Petts Wood are mostly made up of densely packed 1930s semis with 3 bedrooms and costing £300-400k depending on condition. Most are still in very good shape and due to excellent schools the area is in high demand for family housing.
Maybe you are thinking of the more upscale Bromley suburbs like Chislehurst, Bickley and Farnborough, where as you say it is mostly big detached houses and quite a few mansions.
“The ones which were the posh houses in poor areas seem to have declined badly.
Whereas the ones which were the poor houses (relatively speaking) in posh areas generally seem still to be fine.”
That is probably very true.
“Exactly. If the boundary changes do go through the result should be a worry for Labour. The Tories may be weak in Edmonton but on the basis of a result such as we’ve seen in Larkswood they would hold a Chingford & Edmonton seat”
Thats a valid point Barnaby. The proposed Chingford and Edmonton seat will mean that Labour would really have to try to make inroads in Chingford while the Tories would have to do the same in Edmonton. I imagine that IDS would be returned in the new seat.
There is still something I do not like about this seat. It would be really difficult for the individual associations (both Labour and Tory) to come together to canvass effectively and this is made worse by the fact that both places are the complete opposite of each other, in different boroughs, on different sides of the Lea and with poor communication between the two towns.
I would prefer to have two constituencies in Waltham Forest:
Chingford (And Walthamstow East)
Leyton and Walthamstow (Walthamstow West)
One Labour – Stella Creasy and one Conservative – IDS
I know how hard it has been to reorganise constituences however.
I don’t know how you can be confident of IDS winning Chingford & Edmonton when Boris only eked out a 52-48 victory in the seat.
Boris significantly outpolls the Tory general election performance right across London, moreover the demographics in the area are moving to Labour and there are still 3 years more of that before the next election in 2015.
You are taking comfort in the Tories getting a high 60s vote share in a very safe Chingford ward in a low-turnout by-election, but you are forgetting that Labour are getting upwards 75% of the vote in certain Edmonton.
In other words, Labour’s domination of Edmonton and Walthamstow is becoming greater than the Tories’ domination of Chingford on a general election turnout.
I have little doubt that if, as seems likely, the Tories and Labour both have national vote shares of around 35-37% in 2015, Chingford and Edmonton will be a Labour seat.
Not that it matters, because of course the liklihood of the boundary changes going through is even smaller this morning with the news that cameron might drop the idea to avoid Lib Dem opposition.
I don’t think he will drop it, but I don’t think it will go through.
Shaun, do you hope or merely expect that the boundary changes will not go through?
I am surprised how many Tories seem to be remarkably cavalier about their implementation. The party needs these changes in order to correct some portion of the pro Labour bias in the electoral system. The country needs them because they establish the principle that constituencies should be more similar in size than has hitherto been the case; surely a prerequisite of a fair electoral contest.
I do think if this seat goes ahead (which I hope it doesn’t) IDS will win, just. Remember Ponders End is removed while another safe Labour ward is removed (I can’t remeber the name). However IDS really needs Hale End and Highams Park ward rather than Higham Hill to boost his chances. Like many, I think the boundary commission confused the two wards.
I think this new seat will be fought and won on how many people the Tories can get to vote for them in Edmonton (or Jubillee ward which is the only ward with an OK Tory vote) while Labour will have to GOTV in Chingford, especially Valley and possibly Hatch Lane. One thing we all know, it will be a tight contest.
“I am surprised how many Tories seem to be remarkably cavalier about their implementation. The party needs these changes in order to correct some portion of the pro Labour bias in the electoral system”
I understand the need for changes but I find it ridiculous to have such tight constriants over how many people can be in one seat. There are parts of the UK with relatively few people, dumping those voters in with people from medium/large sized towns is hardly helping democracy. In order to engage more people in politics you need to ensure that MPs cover similar areas where the needs of the constituents are fairly similar.
Chingford and Edmonton is a great example of a pointless seat with nothing in common. Billericay and Great Dunmow is another.
OK then maybe these stats will help convice you….
Second round vote for Boris vs Ken in 2012 by ward*
Chingford Green 75-25
Endlebury 76-24
Hatch Lane 66-34
Larkswood 67-33
Valley 58-42
Higham Hill 31-69
Edmonton Green 22-78
Jubilee 37-63
Lower Edmonton 27-73
Average 51-49
*incorporates estimate for allocation of postal votes and valid second preferences
There’s little hope of the Tories winning over people who voted for Livingstone in 2012, who in this seat are overwhelmingly likely to be black or left wing public sector workers (or both). However a lot of WWC Labour voters still voted for Boris and will go back to Labour in the GE.
There’s no way a constituency which Boris won so narrowly will be won by the Tories in a GE unless they are way ahead nationally.
And by the way I agree with Shaun that the probability is that the boundary changes won’t happen. I would guess the chances are 60-40 against.
“Shaun, do you hope or merely expect that the boundary changes will not go through?”
On this occassion Kieran, I am actually fully behind the boundary changes, I assure you.
I was opposed to the pairing of the Isle of Wight with the mainland (which was fortunately removed in the end).
I was opposed to the principle of pairing counties (but its a price worth parying in my view)
I’m outraged by the continued favourable treatment given to the Scottish and Welsh islands, which should certainly have been paired with the mainland.
But the principle of fairness in the boudnary changes is an important one and for too long Labour have been allowed to get away with protecting absurdly tiny electorates in their safest areas. Its about time that bias ended.
And on the whole, I am very very pleased with the proposals that have been put forward by the boundary commission-although in most cases not with the naming of man new seats.
So yes I am in favour of the boundary changes. They ar important in principle and I recognise that they are also highly desirable politically.
…However, when the advantage they give pales into insignificance beside the constitutional vandalism that would have been imposed by the Lords bill, protecting them in order to get the bill would have been wrong and not worth it.
I am resigned to the fact that the boundary changes will probably not go through now. Its a shame, but its a minor dissapointment in comparison. And we can easily bring the changes back if we manage to win an overall majority in the future (obviously only after Cameron has been ousted of course, as we won’t win before then).
It really is rather strange that boundary changes are within the remit of parliament. Surely any review date should be decided independatly of parliament, most likely by the boundary commission. It just isnt fair that Labour and some unfortunate tory backbenchers and the liberals can block a bill entirely on self-intrest which is what we are seeing now.
Thanks for those figures HH. It was good to see a breakdown.
So it looks like IDS may not be as safe as I first thought. Would you say that swapping Higham Hill with Highams Park would allow IDS to win this seat?
I think the valley ward contains the Chingford Hall estate and some rough housing surrounding it, many built by the council in the 90s. This may explain the growing Labour vote there compared to Larkswood on the other side of Chingford Mount Road which is much more suburban and privately owned.
I agree with that. It should be like the US, where new boundaries come into force at the beginning of each new decade. Although the actual drawing of the boundaries is far more political there than here.
My views on the current review are mixed. Like LBernard I believe there is too little leeway given to the boundary commission in terms of constituency sizes, which has thrown up many bad proposals.
Also, whilst the Tories will gain a few extra seats on the new boundaries, it does not remove the fundamental reasons for the FPTP system being biased in Labour’s favour – namely tactical voting and turnout in safe Labour seats being structurally lower.
“Would you say that swapping Higham Hill with Highams Park would allow IDS to win this seat? ”
Probably just about, although it would still be very close in an even year nationally.
Including Highams Park instead of Highams Hill would have given Boris a 54-46 victory instead of 51-49.
This would make the seat quite similar to say Harrow East or Croydon Central – ie. even stevens when Con and Lab poll the same share nationally. As currently proposed the new seat would be more like Enfield North or Hendon – ie. only winnable when the Tories are quite far ahead nationally.
Tactical voting will presumably if anything harm labour in the next GE. The remaining supporters of the LDs are presumably more likely to go blue than red and furthermore tories in LD/Lab seats more likely to lend a vote to the liberals.
I dont have a big problem with differential turnout as that is not a fundamental unfairness like unequal seat sizes and couldnt really be legislated before unless you presume turnout in some areas is going to be higher than others.
This is a nasty boundary change for the Tories.
As Chingford is a fairly self contained area,
I doubt anyone thought it could be merged with Edmonton
- perhaps made somewhat less safe by taking parts of Walthamstow.
Thats sounds like a much more comfortable gap HH. If this seat is to go ahead I hope that these wards are swapped.
“Tories in LD/Lab seats more likely to lend a vote to the liberals”
This is probably true Joe.
“It really is rather strange that boundary changes are within the remit of parliament.”
A very good point.
If Nick Clegg was interested in serious, workmanlike, proper constitutional reform, I’d have thought that that would be one change he could look into making.
But of course, its just the politically eye-catching ‘sexy’ bits of reform that he’s really intereted in isn’t it?
The new proposed Chingford seat drops the link with Edmonton and follows something similar to what I had suggested which was to split Waltham Forest into 2 seats. Chingford with a number of Walthamstow wards and a Leyton seat with the remaining Walthamstow wards (including the town centre). Anything had to be better than crossing the Lea here. If this new seat does make the final cut than I propose IDS will hold it although it will be tight due to the addition of bits of Walthamstow.
It’s purely academic surely.
Census results, white British 2001 / 2011:
Church End: 77.1% / 62.6%
Monkhams: 82.8% / 69.8%
Chingford Green: 86.5% / 76.5%
Endlebury: 82.4% / 68.1%
Hale End & Highams Park: 76.9% / 57.0%
Hatch Lane: 85.8% / 68.8%
Larkswood: 79.7% / 57.5%
Valley: 72.9% / 50.1%
TOTAL: 80.4% / 63.5%
White overall, Chingford & Woodford Green:
2001: 86.8%
2011: 73.6%
Thanks for those figures Andy.
Valley will be the first ward in this seat that I will expect to see Labour make a real breakthrough. Valley also contains the Chingford Hall estate. Larkswood will be next along with Hale End and Highams Park.
“Monkhams: 82.8% / 69.8%
Chingford Green: 86.5% / 76.5%
Endlebury: 82.4% / 68.1%”
I am a little surprised by these results however. On the ground there does not appear to be that much difference in North Chingford and the posher bits of Woodford demographically speaking over the past decade but the results suggest otherwise.